|Climate Change Alarmists Can’t Explain Asian Glaciers|
|by Tom McGregor||Sun, Apr 15, 2012, 08:12 PM|
Global Warming scientists are struggling to explain why glaciers on the Asian continent are getting thicker in recent years. They fear that this may derail their efforts to receive government subsidies from Asian countries to conduct further research on climate change.
According to the BBC News, “some glaciers on Asia’s Karakoram Mountains are defying the global trend and getting thicker, say researchers. A French team used satellite data to show that glaciers in part of the Karakoram Range, to the west of the Himalayan region, are putting on mass.”
The reason remains unclear since glaciers and other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass that is also a global trend. The glaciers of the reason are poorly studied, but provide an essential water source for more than a billion people.
As reported by the BBC, “the response of Himalayan glaciers to global warming has been a hot topic ever since the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which contained the erroneous claim that ice from most of the region could disappear by 2035.”
written by Andrew Lane , April 17, 2012
CO2 scatters infrared. Increase it by 50%, and you get more absorbed heat from the sun.
It's that basic. The only question is how much the warming magnitude is, and what the atmosphere and hydrosphere do with it.
Every established science academy on the planet and authorities as diverse as the Vatican (who from experience know a thing or two about when to support sound science) and the Joint Chiefs of the American Armed Forces agree that the magnitude is not inconsequential.
To dismiss substantial risk acknowledged by most authorities is immoral.
written by Steve Smith , April 17, 2012
Well what about this 'local fluff' our solar system is entering? Some 6000degrees C and all the planets in our solar system beginning to heat up just like earth. NASA even reported mars' Ice caps melting. So wouldnt this have an effect on earth more so than a little co2 or is the 'scientific establishment' already that settled on the matter they don't need to factor it in? Or maybe they'd rather just ignore it to keep getting their tax payer funded grants?
written by Pope Joan , April 17, 2012
I guess what you are getting at with the Vatican is that they learned from their mistakes. However, just because they persecuted Galileo and other scientists, and are supportive of global warming theories which are the establishment norm among scientists, does not mean the Vatican is right.
Global warming theory is nonsense based on a desire for money and power.
written by Xian , April 17, 2012
The more you cry wolf, the more the rest of us tune out. I'm an engineer and I have spent years in financial management. I may not be a "scientist" but I know more about risk, mathematics, and numbers than any of these climate alarmists ever will. If you want credibility, please stop ignoring the facts of the matter (that sunspots and cyclical weather patterns are much more important than CO2 ever will be).
I'm glad all the "academy's" believe in your theory. That adds nothing. Most scientists used to believe that bleeding a patient to death was a cure-all and that the sun went around the earth. Aristotle himself even believed that a fly had 8 legs. Remember, most of these guys are fat, balding, covered in psoriasis, and can't change the oil on their car (smart ones they are).
written by Namron7 , April 17, 2012
"CO2 scatters infrared. Increase it by 50%."
Congratulations, my friend, on breaking the first law of thermodynamics. As for the Vatican - their track record is abysmal: i.e. they used to burn people for saying the earth went around the sun.
written by Namron7 , April 17, 2012
Your comment defies the first law of thermodynamics. i.e. CO2 cannot increase the input energy from the sun.
Secondly, the Vatican has the worst record of any human institution in making false representations of science: sun going around the earth, anyone?
written by Destiny's Soldier , April 17, 2012
Tecnically, CO2 absorbs IR Light emitted from the Earth not the Sun. It's kind of important to state that.
Taking the IPCC's figures, CO2 has increased between 1880 and 2012 from 0.028% to 0.039%. A difference of 0.011% or a fractional increase of 1 in 10,000.
There is no experiment described in any of the IPCC reports to show that raising the CO2 content of the air by 0.011% by volume using a light source at 15 Celcius has any warming effect whatsoever.
written by christoph , April 17, 2012
"who from experience know a thing or two about when to support sound science"...hahaha
Now sound science about what?...that the climate is changing or that it IS THE EVIL HUMANS CAUSING IT.
After all the AGW became Climate Change which is quite natural and happens all the time through out history.
written by George Davey , April 17, 2012
Immoral is pretending we can live in or want an ice age. We all die in an ice age. It is time to quit kidding ourselves. The only consensus I have come to is anyone who wants to reduce carbon is an absolute government loving control freak. We want the most warming we can get the fastest we can get it, but the problem is humans are not controlling the climate, the climate is controlling us.
written by whiteyward , April 17, 2012
To ignore the chicken little upset of capitalism jumping around with Gore leading supports the dismissal. The money made exposes this as another made for tv product. We see the jets and we know the effort to change the weather is military so how much is science and how much is Madison ave.
written by Pix , April 17, 2012
CO2 is heavier than air, plants use the carbon from it and exhale the rest as oxygen. When CO2 gets into the atmosphere sunlight and moisture reacts with it and turns it into sulfuric acid, which falls out as acid rain. Global warming from CO2 the so called greenhouse effect, is total codswallop.
written by joshua , April 17, 2012
funny, the chinese have increased greatly their usage of petroleum fuel over that past decade...and the net result is thicker ice? Andrew, you are drinking way too much koolaid. Arriving at conclusions with INADEQUATE proven facts is not scientific anywhere anyhow anyway. Some of us graduated in the 1960s from quality institutions of higher education and LEARNED before the politics took over what once was science, and before all Universities were honest instead of pandering for grants to publish BS for money.
written by Lee , April 17, 2012
Andrew i cannot tell in all seriousness wether or not your post is /sarcasm?.
referencing the Vatican as a body that recognises science?, im sure da vinci, galileo, and millions more would not agree with you.
The Joint chiefs are the most "On message" political body in the world, they make the messages, Global warming is a front for global legitimised theft from the poorest people, inducing further fuel poverty and in some cases famine.
So, i cannot take your post with anything other than a large pinch of salt, especially now the NASA signatories have presented their view, which, i am iclined to believe, is accurate.
written by debunker , April 17, 2012
We'll, Andrew, it has been proven that CO2 increases actually trail increases in warming. The origin of the warming trend is likely in increased sunspot activity, which will peak soon. What will these "established science academies" say about the cooling that is on the horizon?
written by sedonabear , April 17, 2012
There are even more credible scientists that say that solar cycles drive CO2 emissions, and that after a bunch of CO2 is released following increased solar activity, there is an ice age.
Gee, has anyone noticed how the sun is going nuts lately and shooting all kinds of solar bursts directly at the Earth for several years now?
If you want to reduce the "man-made" impact on climate change, start with getting rid of the military complexes of the so-called "super powers", and stop condemning your neighbor for driving a car, like yourself.
written by willbur , April 17, 2012
There was a period in earths history where it was much warmer and few if any glaciers existed.
How does anyone propose we modify natural cycles?
How many of those organizations profit from climate change studies and "solutions"?
To be a denier is to be attacked from all sides. To even quip with a problem in climate studies is to open yourself up to attack.
Fraud is obvious in many climate studies but it is easier to overlook those facts in the name of nature then it is to address the serious deficiensies in climate change research.
Academics is on the take if nobody was aware, anyone arguing that fact is naive.
written by Me , April 17, 2012
Warming causes increased precipitation, which will fall back to Earth in the form of rain or snow. While most regions of the world are in fact experiencing massive ice losses, including glaciers, some will see increases. This is expected, but it does not at all negate global warming, a well-documented and verifiable fact.
written by Dkossuber , April 17, 2012
Where in words "Climate Change" does it say it has to become warmer???
written by David McElroy , April 17, 2012
The big issue "Global Warming" advocates are attempting to hide is the fact the Earth's axis is shifting. Hence, glaciers and ice packs melt in some areas, only to accumulate in another region. Men and governments can control neither the Sun nor the axis of the earth, but they can sell us a lie they can use to extract more profits in blaming us "little people" and our "carbon footprints". Of course, one volcanic eruption spews far more greenhouse gases than all of mankind's machines combined worldwide. To hell, Al Gore!
written by Aussie Andrew , April 17, 2012
" ...may derail their efforts to receive government subsidies..."
Says it all really.
written by bugler1 , April 17, 2012
Global warming as a threat was decided by the criminal Club of Rome in 1992 after the communist block broke apart. The Earth was getting warmer but in 1998 that changed and since then the Earth is cooling down but the liars continue with their lies.
Water steem is a green house gas so if we had a greenhouse problem the culprit would be water steem and not CO2 as water steem is the third more abundant molecule in the atmosphere.
Watch the movving in 911missinglinks.com for the truth.
written by SilverBear , April 17, 2012
The "greenhouse effect" is a sad attempt to resuscitate 19th century physics that has been long disproved.
FACT: whether one is referencing Venus, Earth or Mars, it is abundantly clear that it is the MASS of thermal capability of the atmosphere that is the issue. Review the basic physics, my friends!
The specific heat of carbon dioxide is minimal --compared to that of Nitrogen, Oxygen and water vapour-- the gases that predominate in the Earth's atmosphere. Don't accept my testimony. Look it up!
To pretend that the physical properties of a poor heat absorption/reflection molecule like carbon dioxide in a concentration of 4 percent of 1 percent [ 400 parts per million] of the atmosphere can substantially affect the 99.99996% of the rest of the atmosphere. . .
Sorry. I used to smoke herb --but I still know the differnce between BS and real science.
Tell me how [in math, with published experimental study references] how these narrow IR frequency response bands of carbon dioxide, in 400 parts per million, can substantially influence the thermal mass of the other 99.99. . . percent of the Earth's atmosphere.
To change track from the scientific to the realm of politics: Do you realise the whole "carbon scare" BS was originally a political campaign by the Thatcher Government to discredit coal producers, in favour of the newly-developed off-shore oil-fields in the North Sea?
UK economy = toilet.
Add invesment into North Sea offshre drilling = UK economy into the black.
Idiots who claim "big oil" is the impetus to "climate change skepticism" have been TOTALLY pwnd!
written by Mr Jones , April 18, 2012
The question is - who does "Andrew Lane" work for? Or is he just another self-policing drone quoting the usual dogma?
written by Martin B , April 18, 2012
CO2 warming muppets ignore the fact that the past record shows that temperature increases first with CO2 lagging behind by about 800 years.
CO2 warming muppets ignore climategate
CO2 muppets ignore the medieval warm period
written by Hans Berger , April 18, 2012
So Andrew, are you saying that increased CO2 now causes cooling? Isn't that very obviously the opposite of the whole global warming argument that increased CO2 causes warming? Excuse me but... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This comment is a perfect example of just how ridiculous & phony the whole global warming/climate change or whatever they call it next is. One word - FAIL!!!
written by Jen , April 18, 2012
Isn't it possible that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is driving the increased thickening of the glaciers? More CO2 means more warmth, therefore more water vapour which moves inland from oceans over India until it reaches Himalayas and then condenses into rain which later becomes ice.
written by ThomasT , April 18, 2012
And to prove that the glaciers are building due to warming... due to this same massive warming, the Bering sea has the most ice ever, the Antarctic has the thickest ice ever, and the early record Arctic freeze of 2008, was beaten by last years winter.
Yeah, the planet is really cooking everywhere, except where we can see or measure.
|< Prev||Next >|